Google Ads

Hey there! We're an open community that values free speech and free thinking on all topics. If that sounds like you, then login or register. It's free and easy. You can also connect with your FaceBook account. Or you can just comment on anything you find of interest, but your comments will then have to wait for moderation before they show.

Mark, Matthew and Luke have him suffer on the sixth day which is also the first day of Passover, and have him been laid in the grave exactly at the beginning of Sabbath, which is also the first day ofthe counting of the Omer, that counts up to the sixth day of the month Sivan = Pentecost, according to what Rashi wrote on Genesis 1:31,

In this scheme they have placed the narrative.

John has it different, he has Jesus crucified on the day before Passover, the day on which the pascal-lambs are slaughtered, but also the sixth day (of the week).

Sylvius, first I want to apologise for the tone in which I wrote the post you are referring to. I have tried to avoid insulting remarks, but I kind of let loose on that one.

Yes, I know, trying to reconcile the Synoptic Gospels with John is challenging. And I know there is a similar challenge in trying to reconcile the counting of the Omer from Passover to Weeks, in Leviticus 23:16-17 KJV:

"And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD."

But in the Hebrew there is a "min" before the "morrow" in both verses, "mimmochorath" (my transliteration is probably horrible), which I understand should be "from". But v 16, which is translated "Even unto", rather than what I think should be another "from", as another "min" is there. So it almost seems to say, "you shall count from the morrow after the sabbath ... seven sabbaths", and then, "from the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall you number fifty days", suggesting you are to count seven sabbaths, and on top of that, another 50 days. And further, when you study the first Passover, and the journey to Sinai, for the giving of the law, when you add up the days, it almost suggests that that journey took closer to 100 days till the giving of the law, which is the OT basis for Pentecost. Of course this rocks the boat, because this would mean that traditional Sivan 6 could not be the actual date of Pentecost (maybe need to drop the name Pentecost and stick with Weeks). What makes this seem somewhat possible is that you are told to count this, and it doesn't seem to make much sense if you know it is always going to be 50 and fall on Sivan 6.

It has been a long time since I studied this, and I have no reference anymore, but I do know that the double "min", if taken literally, does create a calculation problem, especially if you have reasons for insisting on 50 days to Pentecost. I know there is a discrepancy regarding this amongst practicing Hebrew roots people even today. A second issue is following Paul's final journey from Philippi to Jerusalem, and counting up the days, he begins at the end of Passover, but wants to make it to Jerusalem by Pentecost, however there seems to be more than 50. Also, if First Fruits of Passover week is barley harvest, and Pentecost is grain and grape harvest, it is argued that these crops would take more than an additional 50 days to harvest from barley waive offering. There might be something to this, because this would mean that in addition to the spring and fall feasts, there is a summer feast, not another late spring feast.

Many things to consider.

As for the crucifixion date, I have heard a few different attempts at resolving this. One says that at Passover, there could be multiple sabbaths, thus it being referred to as a high day. So they might have held off in dealing with Jesus burial for the first sabbath, and then on the day following the second sabbath, they visited the tomb with burial spices. I know many believe that Jesus was crucified on Wed/Thu, not Friday, and then was raised from the dead on late Sabbath, as it is said that He had already risen from the dead before sunrise on the day after Sabbath. But it doesn't actually say when He was resurrected, so it very well could have been on Sabbath. I must admit though, it sure seems to fit, His being raised from the dead on the 1st of the week, following Sabbath. Maybe it is time for me to work through this one again.

It sure is fascinating at times, isn't it? It appears that both OT and NT have synchronization issues.

For he made haste, if it were possible for him, to arrive the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem

But he never "arrived" the day of Pentecost -- before that he was arrested to evnetually "land" in Rome.

Acts doesn't relate Paul's death, so it leaves open that he might still be alive, " in his own hired house, and receiving all that come in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him", and still underway to his Pentecost.

For he made haste, if it were possible for him, to arrive the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem

But he never "arrived" the day of Pentecost -- before that he was arrested to evnetually "land" in Rome.

Acts doesn't relate Paul's death, so it leaves open that he might still be alive, " in his own hired house, and receiving all that come in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him", and still underway to his Pentecost.

Sylvius,

I just can't believe how at the slightest synchronous issue in the NT, you come up with some crazy invention, the first thing that pops into your head, and blow it out like a fact. What about facing up to the same issues in the OT, like I showed, and give the same intellectual honesty and patient resolution to both?

I just can't believe how at the slightest synchronous issue in the NT, you come up with some crazy invention, the first thing that pops into your head, and blow it out like a fact. What about facing up to the same issues in the OT, like I showed, and give the same intellectual honesty and patient resolution to both?

dp

It was not the first thing that popped into my head, and it is also not my invention.

Acts mostly is considered to be a "history" book, about "the historical acts of the apostels".

I have a book that states: Acts is not history but parable, parable of the coming kingdom.